Jump to content
Fantasy Football - Footballguys Forums

Government Response To The Coronavirus


Recommended Posts

  • Replies 25.9k
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Top Posters In This Topic

Popular Posts

This is going to be a one off post because I don't want to get trolled or banned but if I were American, the context of Canada would be the biggest damning fact of how things have been handled in the

Australia has had months of little to no community spread and even then it was confined to one state. By and large Australians are running around doing the right thing, sport was and is still hap

I am confident we are going to hit >750K deaths.  I think it might be a million.  I don't post a ton but I'm an ER doc in a big city. This is by far the worse I've seen since the pandemic star

44 minutes ago, The Commish said:

First thing that comes to mind is expiration.  The one has to be kept in a -80 freezer...not everywhere has those and getting it distributed is tricky.  

Dry ice business is about to be booming 

Link to post
Share on other sites

Also, they probably don’t need to be that cold. It just takes time and trials to get an accurate read on shelf life and temperature ranges. So -80 is a very extreme extra cautious temp. Which makes sense, nobody wants to be the idiots who spoil 5 million COVID vaccines.

Link to post
Share on other sites

This is becoming a popular talking point...

Doctors looking to blame trump for why airborne hasnt been publicized. 

Nevermind that the WHO is more airborne denial than anybody and last I checked Trump has no influence there. And of course there are countless doctors that have nothing to do with the cdc that have actively fought against "airborne"

Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, parasaurolophus said:

This is becoming a popular talking point...

Doctors looking to blame trump for why airborne hasnt been publicized. 

Nevermind that the WHO is more airborne denial than anybody and last I checked Trump has no influence there. And of course there are countless doctors that have nothing to do with the cdc that have actively fought against "airborne"

Yeah there’s a lot of piling on going on against Trump. He’s being blamed for a lot of stuff that he had no control over, which is completely unfair. Shades of Herbert Hoover. 

On the other hand Trump is so far from blameless regarding this crisis that I’m not sure it matters all that much (beyond the need for factual accuracy which is important.) If historians, and the general public, look back upon this time and conclude that Trump made blunder after blunder, often deliberately, which resulted in needless deaths and suffering, that will be the correct conclusion. 

  • Like 1
  • Sad 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
11 minutes ago, parasaurolophus said:

This is becoming a popular talking point...

Doctors looking to blame trump for why airborne hasnt been publicized. 

Nevermind that the WHO is more airborne denial than anybody and last I checked Trump has no influence there. And of course there are countless doctors that have nothing to do with the cdc that have actively fought against "airborne"

I'm not sure how this is Trump's fault.  There's plenty to dump on Trump in this, even if true this is but one piece of paper on a mountain of evidence, but I don't think I'd lay this at his feet even with as bad as messaging has been from this admin.

Link to post
Share on other sites

More incompetence: months ago Pfizer tried to get the Trump administration to commit to purchasing additional doses of the vaccine, but the folks in charge of Warp Speed were skeptical and didn’t want to spend the money. Now that the vaccine is proven, Washington is demanding these doses but Pfizer has sold them elsewhere. The result is we won’t get enough doses until June or July. 
https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.nytimes.com/2020/12/07/us/politics/trump-pfizer-coronavirus-vaccine.amp.html

Edited by timschochet
  • Sad 2
Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, timschochet said:

Yeah there’s a lot of piling on going on against Trump. He’s being blamed for a lot of stuff that he had no control over, which is completely unfair. Shades of Herbert Hoover. 

On the other hand Trump is so far from blameless regarding this crisis that I’m not sure it matters all that much (beyond the need for factual accuracy which is important.) If historians, and the general public, look back upon this time and conclude that Trump made blunder after blunder, often deliberately, which resulted in needless deaths and suffering, that will be the correct conclusion. 

I dont care if trump gets blamed for all sorts of policy failures. 

But doctors trying to wash their hands of this (pun intended) will just further erode trust in public health. The evidence is available in black and white. We know what they have been saying for months. 

 

Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, timschochet said:

More incompetence: months ago Pfizer tried to get the Trump administration to commit to purchasing additional doses of the vaccine, but the folks in charge of Warp Speed were skeptical and didn’t want to spend the money. Now that the vaccine is proven, Washington is demanding these doses but Pfizer has sold them elsewhere. The result is we won’t get enough doses until June or July. 
https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.nytimes.com/2020/12/07/us/politics/trump-pfizer-coronavirus-vaccine.amp.html

This is just awful. 

Link to post
Share on other sites
4 hours ago, parasaurolophus said:

https://twitter.com/trishgreenhalgh/status/1336185857628319745

Released from Trump’s ideological grip, the CDC now admits the science: the virus is airborne; inhalation is the main mode of transmission; masks are needed

Oh god is that for real? I haven’t followed the CDC stuff much but they really were saying masks wouldn’t help and it’s not spreading through airborne inhalation recently?

Link to post
Share on other sites

On the storage for the vaccines - if you own stock in Pfizer, I’d look to sell shortly after they get the approval and before Moderna gets approved. The Pfizer vaccine is only a viable option until more alternatives are available.

The -80 degrees storage is actually the lower end. I think the packaging suggests -80 to -120. But almost as important is that it is only good for 3 in the refrigerator after defrosting. In comparison, Moderna needs to be kept around -20 but is good for 30 days in the fridge. That’s a huge advantage and I believe a lot of the other candidate vaccines are even better than Moderna’s storage. Pfizer’s vaccine will be used for mass vaccination events, dropped off and used within a couple days. Moderna and other vaccines will be the ones that go out to pharmacies and doctors offices.

Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, Bamboo Bill said:

S U P E R   S P R E A D E R S

President Trump's lawyer Jenna Ellis has informed associates she has coronavirus, multiple sources tell Axios, stirring West Wing fears after she attended a senior staff Christmas party on Friday.

A senior staff Christmas party in the middle of a pandemic, ignoring CDC guidelines. Brilliant.

Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, Bamboo Bill said:

S U P E R   S P R E A D E R S

President Trump's lawyer Jenna Ellis has informed associates she has coronavirus, multiple sources tell Axios, stirring West Wing fears after she attended a senior staff Christmas party on Friday.

Deep State gets to another player

Link to post
Share on other sites

The guys at Pfizer and Moderna who made the decision to decline to be at Trump’s vaccine summit thing today have to be SO thankful they made that call:

Link

 This White House vaccine summit has gone way off the rails, with Trump ranting about his election loss, continuing to claim that he’s won, saying he hopes SCOTUS steps in, and regurgitating debunked conspiracy theories about “machines” and “ballots being taken away”

Sad that we’re where we are. The summit could have been a great show of leadership and assurance to the country that better days are ahead, and instead became a fear mongering, self-centered, outrageous rant. Sad.

Link to post
Share on other sites

What a joke.

Jake Sherman @JakeSherman

“Mitch doesn’t want a deal,” says @Sen_JoeManchin on covid relief. McConnell suggested state and local and liability overhaul be taken out. Schumer said no. Covid talks have stumbled again.

3:36 PM · Dec 8, 2020

  • Sad 2
Link to post
Share on other sites
On 12/5/2020 at 9:48 PM, Shula-holic said:

I'm not surprised.  It's why I don't think it matters who is President, Governor, Mayor, whatever.  Nothing anyone in the government could have said would change what the people are going to do.  Even if you want to say it's a 50/50 issue on what people believe, our politicians who often implement the stricter protocols often don't follow them themselves.  Just based on that I'd expect it to be well over 50% of the population to disregard them at least in part.

I don't believe this for a second.  If the POTUS and every member of the Senate and House were in lockstep on how to attack this then we would be much better off.  This turned partisan and then fingers started pointing.  Total dysfunction by all levels of government - they all deserve blame.

  • Like 3
Link to post
Share on other sites
8 hours ago, GroveDiesel said:

The guys at Pfizer and Moderna who made the decision to decline to be at Trump’s vaccine summit thing today have to be SO thankful they made that call:

Link

 

 

Sad that we’re where we are. The summit could have been a great show of leadership and assurance to the country that better days are ahead, and instead became a fear mongering, self-centered, outrageous rant. Sad.

He accomplished this. 

Link to post
Share on other sites
52 minutes ago, AAABatteries said:

I don't believe this for a second.  If the POTUS and every member of the Senate and House were in lockstep on how to attack this then we would be much better off.  This turned partisan and then fingers started pointing.  Total dysfunction by all levels of government - they all deserve blame.

This assumes they would be in lockstep toward the right goal. Odds of that are .2%. Too many favorites are always catered to. 

Link to post
Share on other sites
10 minutes ago, parasaurolophus said:

This assumes they would be in lockstep toward the right goal. Odds of that are .2%. Too many favorites are always catered to. 

 

1 hour ago, AAABatteries said:

I don't believe this for a second.  If the POTUS and every member of the Senate and House were in lockstep on how to attack this then we would be much better off.  This turned partisan and then fingers started pointing.  Total dysfunction by all levels of government - they all deserve blame.

THIS was never going to be partisan. Recall after Trump closed off China travel, Pelosi & Biden called it xenophobic.  NOW, Pelosi admits she will approve Covid Relief bill because there's a new president (and Bernie confirms it).  THAT is disgusting

Link to post
Share on other sites
7 minutes ago, raidergil said:

 

 Recall after Trump closed off China travel, Pelosi & Biden called it xenophobic.  

Actually, I don't recall that at all. China travel was never "closed off".... it was closed off to Chinese people. What do you think the definition of xenophobic is?

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
14 minutes ago, BoltBacker said:
23 minutes ago, raidergil said:

 Recall after Trump closed off China travel, Pelosi & Biden called it xenophobic.  

Actually, I don't recall that at all. 

He actually called Trump Xenophobic several times. I myself couldn't recall each of them. From PolitiFact:

The former vice president did accuse Trump of "xenophobia" in an Iowa campaign speech the same day, Jan. 31, that Health and Human Services Secretary Alex Azar announced the administration's travel restrictions on people who were in China 14 days prior to their attempted entry into the U.S.

Biden said: "This is no time for Donald Trump's record of hysteria xenophobia, hysterical xenophobia, and fear-mongering to lead the way instead of science."

Link to post
Share on other sites
7 hours ago, NorvilleBarnes said:

He actually called Trump Xenophobic several times. I myself couldn't recall each of them. From PolitiFact:

The former vice president did accuse Trump of "xenophobia" in an Iowa campaign speech the same day, Jan. 31, that Health and Human Services Secretary Alex Azar announced the administration's travel restrictions on people who were in China 14 days prior to their attempted entry into the U.S.

Biden said: "This is no time for Donald Trump's record of hysteria xenophobia, hysterical xenophobia, and fear-mongering to lead the way instead of science."

They did call not the "Chinese travel ban" xenophobic, they called Trump's 4-year record xenophobic.  In truth, his record is xenophobic, as was that specific policy.

Edited by Rich Conway
  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
8 hours ago, parasaurolophus said:

This assumes they would be in lockstep toward the right goal. Odds of that are .2%. Too many favorites are always catered to. 

Well, yeah - that was my point and why I’m blaming all of them.  To me, this was similar to war time or 9/11 - we all needed to be working towards a common goal.  These politicians ultimately showed that for most of them partisan politics was more important than American lives.  We can’t even pass a relief bill now, 9 months in and during our worst outbreak.  Screw all of them.

Link to post
Share on other sites
17 hours ago, caustic said:

What a joke.

Jake Sherman @JakeSherman

“Mitch doesn’t want a deal,” says @Sen_JoeManchin on covid relief. McConnell suggested state and local and liability overhaul be taken out. Schumer said no. Covid talks have stumbled again.

3:36 PM · Dec 8, 2020

It’s gotten worse since this post. Mnuchin sent a proposal which cuts unemployed relief down to almost zero which to Democrats is a non-starter. 
The evidence seems to suggest that the Republican leadership don’t really want a deal; what they want is to be able to argue they tried. That’s my impression anyhow. 

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
3 minutes ago, timschochet said:

It’s gotten worse since this post. Mnuchin sent a proposal which cuts unemployed relief down to almost zero which to Democrats is a non-starter. 
The evidence seems to suggest that the Republican leadership don’t really want a deal; what they want is to be able to argue they tried. That’s my impression anyhow. 

That's been their approach this whole time. Only corporations and the rich deserve help apparently. 

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
17 hours ago, caustic said:

What a joke.

Jake Sherman @JakeSherman

“Mitch doesn’t want a deal,” says @Sen_JoeManchin on covid relief. McConnell suggested state and local and liability overhaul be taken out. Schumer said no. Covid talks have stumbled again.

3:36 PM · Dec 8, 2020

https://twitter.com/RepKatiePorter/status/1336484551783194624

  • Love 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
38 minutes ago, timschochet said:

It’s gotten worse since this post. Mnuchin sent a proposal which cuts unemployed relief down to almost zero which to Democrats is a non-starter. 
The evidence seems to suggest that the Republican leadership don’t really want a deal; what they want is to be able to argue they tried. That’s my impression anyhow. 

Personally think both sides are playing everybody. Neither really want a deal and both are in lock step. They continually add things they know the other side will not agree to and get just close enough to argue that they are trying. 

Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, timschochet said:

It’s gotten worse since this post. Mnuchin sent a proposal which cuts unemployed relief down to almost zero which to Democrats is a non-starter. 
The evidence seems to suggest that the Republican leadership don’t really want a deal; what they want is to be able to argue they tried. That’s my impression anyhow. 

Well yeah. Hard to sabotage the new president with a robust deal that helps Americans. 

You can argue that this is hyperbolic and cynical all you want but I would give you the entire Obama administration as evidence of McConnell's bad faith. I would say the burden is on him to show some honest good faith. 

Link to post
Share on other sites
41 minutes ago, fruity pebbles said:

Personally think both sides are playing everybody. Neither really want a deal and both are in lock step. They continually add things they know the other side will not agree to and get just close enough to argue that they are trying. 

Both sides is a lazy cop out argument. Always has been. 

Edited by Jackstraw
  • Like 2
  • Thanks 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
6 minutes ago, AAABatteries said:

I'm perfectly happy to discuss both sides on this.  No one is blameless. 

I’m happy to do that too. I would have no trouble believing it; in fact I’ve been inclined to do so. 

But the actual evidence that is out there doesn’t show that. From everything I’m seeing and reading, the Republicans are the ones who appear to be the obstructionists, not both sides. If somebody has information that contradicts this please present it. 

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
13 minutes ago, timschochet said:

I’m happy to do that too. I would have no trouble believing it; in fact I’ve been inclined to do so. 

But the actual evidence that is out there doesn’t show that. From everything I’m seeing and reading, the Republicans are the ones who appear to be the obstructionists, not both sides. If somebody has information that contradicts this please present it. 

The Democrats are obstructing less money and no corporate liability.

Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, BroadwayG said:

The Democrats are obstructing less money and no corporate liability 

Regarding this: I understand the Republican argument that we don’t want to turn this into lawsuit city where trial lawyers use Covid as a means to sue any big business- I get that. 
On the other hand, if a company of any side deliberately ignored public health safety regulations and forced its employees to be unsafe so that some got sick and died, there ought to be means to address this. 

It’s a complicated issue IMO; there needs to be a way to reach a compromise. 

Link to post
Share on other sites
3 minutes ago, timschochet said:

Regarding this: I understand the Republican argument that we don’t want to turn this into lawsuit city where trial lawyers use Covid as a means to sue any big business- I get that. 
On the other hand, if a company of any side deliberately ignored public health safety regulations and forced its employees to be unsafe so that some got sick and died, there ought to be means to address this. 

It’s a complicated issue IMO; there needs to be a way to reach a compromise. 

Isn't the compromise to allow cases to be brought and tried? Guaranteed there will be nuisance lawsuits brought, but the legal system is what is supposed to handle these things.

  • Like 1
  • Thanks 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, Gr00vus said:

Isn't the compromise to allow cases to be brought and tried? Guaranteed there will be nuisance lawsuits brought, but the legal system is what is supposed to handle these things.

Corporations would argue that the threats of such lawsuits, especially the nuisance ones, would paralyze them and would be used as a form of extortion  by the trial lawyers. I’m not saying I agree with this argument, but history does suggest there is at least some merit to it. 

Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, timschochet said:

Corporations would argue that the threats of such lawsuits, especially the nuisance ones, would paralyze them and would be used as a form of extortion  by the trial lawyers. I’m not saying I agree with this argument, but history does suggest there is at least some merit to it. 

Understood. There's only so much you can do, but a blanket denial of due process doesn't seem to be a good approach. In the end the corporations are much better able to handle the possible risk than individuals, for reasons you've mentioned.

Link to post
Share on other sites
16 minutes ago, timschochet said:

Regarding this: I understand the Republican argument that we don’t want to turn this into lawsuit city where trial lawyers use Covid as a means to sue any big business- I get that. 
On the other hand, if a company of any side deliberately ignored public health safety regulations and forced its employees to be unsafe so that some got sick and died, there ought to be means to address this. 

It’s a complicated issue IMO; there needs to be a way to reach a compromise. 

There were already provisions for negligence and misconduct. 

Link to post
Share on other sites
6 minutes ago, timschochet said:

I’m unaware- can you be more specific? 

one of the exceptions to the safe hardbor...

in engaging in the businesses, services, activities, or accommodations, the individual or entity was not making reasonable efforts in light of all the circumstances to comply with the applicable government standards and guidance in effect at the time of the actual, alleged, feared, or potential for exposure to coronavirus;

 

To give you an idea of how this could affect some real world litigation...

Person A wants to wear a mask to Work on March 26th. Employer says no. Person A has symptoms for covid April 3rd and gets tested. He is positive. 

Sues and says he got it because the employer wouldnt let him wear masks. Suit rejected Since mask guidance didn't change until after he would have caught it.  

If same accusation is made May 1st that would be considered unreasonable under then current recommendations and suit could proceed.  

Link to post
Share on other sites

There is also language in there about businesses that have posted covid policies and are being negligent in enforcing them. Several other things as well.

Some of the language I am not sure I fully understand, but there might even be the ability for people to sue strictly for lost wages even if it wasnt considered to be negligence or misconduct. 

Link to post
Share on other sites
4 minutes ago, parasaurolophus said:

one of the exceptions to the safe hardbor...

in engaging in the businesses, services, activities, or accommodations, the individual or entity was not making reasonable efforts in light of all the circumstances to comply with the applicable government standards and guidance in effect at the time of the actual, alleged, feared, or potential for exposure to coronavirus;

 

To give you an idea of how this could affect some real world litigation...

Person A wants to wear a mask to Work on March 26th. Employer says no. Person A has symptoms for covid April 3rd and gets tested. He is positive. 

Sues and says he got it because the employer wouldnt let him wear masks. Suit rejected Since mask guidance didn't change until after he would have caught it.  

If same accusation is made May 1st that would be considered unreasonable under then current recommendations and suit could proceed.  

If all this is true I’m not sure what the function of the safe harbor actually is.  A case would need to be litigated until the fact finder determined whether the defendant’s actions were reasonable.  That’s exactly what what would happen in the absence of any liability protection law.

Link to post
Share on other sites
5 hours ago, Rich Conway said:
12 hours ago, NorvilleBarnes said:

He actually called Trump Xenophobic several times. I myself couldn't recall each of them. From PolitiFact:

The former vice president did accuse Trump of "xenophobia" in an Iowa campaign speech the same day, Jan. 31, that Health and Human Services Secretary Alex Azar announced the administration's travel restrictions on people who were in China 14 days prior to their attempted entry into the U.S.

Biden said: "This is no time for Donald Trump's record of hysteria xenophobia, hysterical xenophobia, and fear-mongering to lead the way instead of science."

They did call not the "Chinese travel ban" xenophobic, they called Trump's 4-year record xenophobic.  In truth, his record is xenophobic, as was that specific policy.

This is bizarre and untrue. It also doesn't counter the point the original poster made. It confirms it. This is an example of arguing just for the sake of arguing. Not blocking you or Sea Duck, but also not wasting any more time on you two.

Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, fatguyinalittlecoat said:

If all this is true I’m not sure what the function of the safe harbor actually is.  A case would need to be litigated until the fact finder determined whether the defendant’s actions were reasonable.  That’s exactly what what would happen in the absence of any liability protection law.

That case is basically an actual case happening right now. Under the shield it wouldnt be. So it would be that purpose. 

Link to post
Share on other sites
18 minutes ago, NorvilleBarnes said:

This is bizarre and untrue. It also doesn't counter the point the original poster made. It confirms it. This is an example of arguing just for the sake of arguing. Not blocking you or Sea Duck, but also not wasting any more time on you two.

I'm not sure which item you consider untrue.  It's absolutely not arguing for the sake of arguing.  It's an attempt at countering misinformation being pushed by Trump supporters.

Trump did NOT ban travel from China at any point.  That is a fact.  His policy banned certain individuals from traveling here from China.  It allowed US citizens to come here from China, but not Chinese citizens (as if the virus respects nationality).  That is a fact.  That policy is xenophobic.  That last is my own opinion, but seems like a pretty straightforward conclusion.

  • Like 3
Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Restore formatting

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.


×
×
  • Create New...